Likewise, this court has explained that "an 'action' is confined to judicial proceedings." Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007). The term "arbitration" generally means "[a] dispute-resolution process in which the disputing parties choose one or more neutral third parties to make a final and binding decision resolving the dispute."
This court in Johnson observed that the applicable insurance policy conformed with the statute's two-year time limit. 732 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn.App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007).
Like prejudgment interest, preaward interest is governed by Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1. Auto-Owners contends that Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. , 732 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007), supports its position that High Banks’ claim for preaward interest is time-barred.
Under Minnesota law, it is well established that liability determinations are made by courts, not appraisers. Mark v. Eurekar-Security Fire Marine Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 382, 384, 42 N.W.2d 33, 35 (1950); Itasca Paper Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 175 Minn. 73, 78-79, 220 N.W. 425, 427 (1928); Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007).
More significantly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals explicitly concluded that "the statutorily required appraisal provision is not an agreement to arbitrate." Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). On a very similar record, Johnson rejected the insured's argument that its demand for appraisal made after the policy's two year suit limitation provision expired needed to be honored; Johnson instead held that an "appraisal provision is not an agreement to arbitrate . . . and the appraisal provision is governed by the two-year limitation on actions or suits to recover under the policy."
In light of this precedent, the Court concludes that the lawsuit limitation clause at issue in State Farm's policy does not bar Alpine Glass' right to arbitrate the 115 claims in which the loss occurred more than one year prior to the commencement of this lawsuit. State Farm relies upon Johnson v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., 732 N.W.2d 340 (Minn.Ct.App.2007), for the proposition that lawsuit limitations periods bar arbitration proceedings unless “ambiguous policy language would lead a reasonable insured to conclude that claims can be arbitrated after expiration of the suit limitations period.” (Reply at 7, Feb. 4, 2014, Docket No. 53.) State Farm argues that because the policy language “expressly applies to glass claims” such claims cannot be arbitrated more than one year after the loss, and once “the contractual right to bring a matter to court has expired, the right to arbitrate has been lost.” ( Id. at 7–8.)
It is well established that “[a]ppraisal is a non-judicial method to resolve disputes over the amount of a loss.” Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Minn.App.2007), review denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007); see also State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 889–90 (Tex.2009) (stating that the scope of appraisal has historically been limited to determining the amount of damages).
It is well established that "[a]ppraisal is a non-judicial method to resolve disputes over the amount of a loss." Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Aug. 21, 2007); see also State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886, 889-90 (Tex. 2009) (stating that the scope of appraisal has historically been limited to determining the amount of damages).
The Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act applies to the review and confirmation of appraisal awards in insurance disputes. QBE Ins. Corp. v. Twin Homes of French Ridge Homeowners Ass'n , 778 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) ; David A. Brooks Enters., Inc. v. First Sys. Agencies , 370 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) ; seeJohnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. , 732 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). Under the Act, if an award is ambiguous, the court may "submit the claim to the arbitrator to consider whether to modify or correct the award ... to clarify the award."
A decision to reverse that decision, as supported by reasoning in persuasive caselaw, "would allow an insured to wait years after a suit limitation provision expired to demand appraisal." Id. (citing Johnson v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 732 N.W.2d 340, 346 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007); Nat'l Refrigeration, Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 947 A.2d 906, 910 (R.I. 2008)). In reply, Legend's Creek argues that "this Court's previous Order [(ordering the appraisal)] and Travelers' own policy make the appraisal award binding."